Cycling Partner Wanted

I haven't been doing as much cycling as I'd like to this year, in part due to a shortage of cycling-oriented friends. I'm looking for a cycling buddy for a weeknight run in the park after work, and/or during the day on a weekend, in or out of the city. Have car and train pass. I'm a B-13 or 14. (B means I don't need to stop very often. 13-14 is my average speed, factoring in hills). Typical preferred mileage on a day trip is usually about 42 miles or so. If interested send me an e-mail: [email protected]

Lois - I have been tied up most weekends, but could probably meet you during the week for a ride. I work near City Hall and am relatively new to NYC so if you have any rides you can suggest, I'll definitely join you! B13/14 sounds good to me!

"I didn't want my message to get buried, so for those who might be interested in doing a few loops around the park tomorrow at 7:00 p.m., see message posted towards the bottom of the threads titled: (This) Friday Night ""quickie"".

"I've gotten a couple of responses from people at my e-mail address, as well as the ones posted here. So far, everyone seems to be on a different schedule as to availability. However, since there seems to be a ""shortage"" (i.e. none) of group rides at the B-14 or C-14 level, I'd be happy to maintain an ongoing list of similarly-minded people for those looking for someone to bike with, individually or as a group. If interested, send me an e-mail with your name and general times of availability. If you don't want your name and/or e-mail address shared with others, mention that as well. --Lois"

"You're right about the rating, Rick. Now that you've pointed that out, perhaps I've overestimated my hill climbing speed. I'm not sure what the rating would be, but I've felt most comfortable on rides rated in the ""14"" category. For those who are looking for evenly-matched cycling partners, that's where I'd put myself at this point."

I started a seperate post about weekday c rides, but might be able to keep up with you. I need to do some hills though to get ready for a planned trip in october. Days are best for me, or Monday or Tuesday evenings if I haven't gotten out of town. Problem with evenings now is there isn't much daylight left after 8pm.

I usually get out late mornings or early afternoons. I'm also able to get a few bikes on the car for trips out of the city like the North County Rail Trail in Westchester. It's kind of flat but you can cover some nice distance easily.

There are actually 3 ride speed numbers to remember -- Irv Weisman's rule of thumb (he's the one that invented all this) is:

Cruising speed - you look down at your spedometer while riding on FLAT GROUND

is 3 mph more than:

Average Speed - you look down at your computer's average speed on ROLLING TERRAIN, assuming that your computer stops for breaks and lunch

is 3 mph more than

Whole Day speed - This is number of hours from the time you left your home till you got back divided into the number of miles you covered (i.e. this would be the same as if your bike computer didn't stop counting lunch and breaks into the time total). This number is useful for ride leaders mainly. I brought it up because of the wording of Rick's response.

Because many riders and ride leaders are confused about this, we have grade inflation in the club, where people list a B15 ride and then proceed to AVERAGE 15 (which is 3 mph more than what it should be). I do wish that word would get out to all so we are all on the same page.

Though I've been leading for the club every year since 1980 or so, the number of active slower riders that the club retains is approaching nil, and the club leadership hasn't done much to stem the tide (I can't blame them for all of it... another former member who rides at my speed told me she overheard some faster NYCC riders laughing at and deriding anyone who would choose to ride with the C's as they might grow breasts...-- let's see.. how many people have just been insulted?) I'm a bit slower than you are, and I wish you success in finding a riding buddy. My head is full of lovely, scenic routes that are wasted if I don't lead. And because there are fewer riders and I didn't join the club to ride alone, I've been riding less and getting a little slower (actually average 10-11 mph - cruising speed = 13). Anyone out there looking for pretty rides of this speed?

I've heard this phrase, too, but at the moment of its origination, and whoever is spreading it around, took it out of the context. The whole conversation was devoted to developing ideas of how to make C rides more gender balanced and attract more men to participate in C groups. And women were joking about some men's possible reluctance to join C rides ""for the fear that they might grow breasts."" No offense, whatsoever, was meant for those who do not ride fast but, in my opinion, quite the opposite. Cheers."

In the spring, there were at least two C rides each weekend, the C-SIG & C-STS. After these two series ended, there have been very few weekend C rides. Scott Wasserman, the C-Ride Co-ordinator, has led most of them. I suppose that after the SIG and STS are over, all the C riders migrate to the 5BBC or ride on their own.

I thought that one of the purposes of the SIG was to create future ride leaders. It seems that the C-SIG hasn't been very successful at this.

As a 2006 C-Siggee my impression of the C-SIG was to create competent and safe riders. As a result of riding every week we also became faster and stronger. A lot of us moved on to B rides once we graduated.

...and I'm not sure I can answer clearly. I guess we become faster C riders. Perhaps the shortage of C rides forces us into the slow B rides. Also, my ride leaders told us we were ready for B15s when we graduated. I can only report my own experience. I started doing slow B rides once I graduated the SIG and have gradually increased to a B16/17 pace. However, that was my intention - I *wanted* to ride faster and longer. A few of my SIG mates have joined me but I'm not sure what happened to the rest of the folks in my group.

As I said this is only my experience. Perhaps some other C-SIG graduates will add theirs.

"Forgive the digression, but this reminds me of the time 28 years ago when I got kicked out of college: I had brought in my 2 dorm neighbors from next door as character witnesses to the kangaroo court the college disciplinary committee had cobbled together, & one of these guys very eloquently & at length described what an outstanding student & dorm resident I was, & how I was an asset to the student body, & how I shouldn't be kicked out of school...and the other guy, who had apparently just lit up a big doobie moments before coming into court, basically got up and mumbled ""um, yeah, what he said.""

So anyway...um, yeah, what Betsy said.

Which is to say, we graduated from the C-SIG and were told we should now be capable of doing B rides. Which it appears we were. The fact that there weren't a whole lot of C rides available to choose from, coupled with our desire to go farther, faster, and stop less frequently, might have had something to do with that.

It seems logical that upon graduating from a C-SIG you become a competant B rider (& that upon graduating from the B-SIG you become a competant A rider, etc.) But I guess it's equally logical that you aren't a competant C rider *until* you complete the C-SIG. This seems like more of a semantic issue than a logistical issue.

In either case, I was told that it is the B-SIG, not the C-SIG, that is designed to produce new ride leaders; in fact, I was told it's an obligation of B-SIG graduates to lead some rides during the year of their graduation.

But if I was misinformed, I'll happily lead or co-lead some C rides this year. Who wants to do a C-18 to Bear Mountain & back this Saturday? :)

You don't have to graduate from any SIG to lead rides.But, any SIG graduate should be qualified to lead rides. There have been very few C rides since the C SIG ended. If C riders want more C rides, it would be great if some of the recent grads would get together to lead some rides.

C SIG grads have fantastic riding skills. Many of them would make great ride leaders. So what if many typically participate in B rides now? It would be great to see some of them give back to the club by slowing down and leading a C ride.

The bottom line of this lively discussion: C-SIG graduates, Betsy, Bob, Jan, Alisa, let's lead C rides. I do believe there should be at least one C ride scheduled every weekend, and if we mobilize enough of our C-siggies to lead them, taking turns, this can be accomplished. Hope to hear from you off the list. Tanya

">>If you become a competent B rider after the C Sig wouldn't that imply that you were a competent Crider before the C Sig<<

I think the value (and/or, dare I say, the entire point) of the C-SIG is not the improvement to a rider's speed (average or cruising) but rather the improvement to a rider's competency.

If someone graduates from the C-SIG & never goes faster than a C12 pace that's all well and good; there's nothing wrong with being a slow rider, and the point of the SIG wasn't necessarily to make someone fast (...just, perhaps, fast-er).

If however someone graduates from the C-SIG and is an incompetent rider, the SIG has failed in its mission (and that person probably had no business ""graduating"").

Therefore I would suggest that a more logical supposition would be: if you become a competent B rider after the C Sig, that implies that you may have been an incompetent rider before the C Sig. (Do we have a name for them? ""D riders"" perhaps?)"

I wouldn't say that all C SIG riders become B riders upon graduation. The C SIG had 4 different groups that rode at different speeds/mileages. The 2 faster C SIG groups graduated at a B pace. I'm not sure about the other 2 groups, but I'd guess they maybe graduated at a C13 or C14?

The difference in a C SIG group graduating at a 16 pace and the B16 SIG group is still quite wide. The B SIG groups cover more difficult and longer routes and don't stop as often, so in general the B16 grads may be a little stronger than the faster C SIG grads. As someone that has led several B rides this year, I can say that I've seen 5-6 recent C SIG grads that have done great on my rides.

I think it makes sense to start with C. Even if capable of riding at B speeds, I think it makes sense to slow down a bit, especially as a rookie ride leader. But after leading a few C rides, I see no reason why they shouldn't lead B rides if that's the preference.

Our definition of a C ride kills me. Our description states that a C ride should stop every hour or so. I think that's something that's a little unusual about our club. A friend of mine that lives in Hoboken rides with a Bike touring club in NJ. She would do our C rides as well, but the thought of having to stop once an hour is unappealing.

edit..Yikes, I was wrong. Our club bulletin actually states that C rides should stop every half-hour or so, and B rides should stop every hour or so. That's way too much stopping.

I vaguely remember B and A SIG's requires graduates to lead at least two rides in that catagory. Is that still true? And does the C-SIG has the same requirement?

Anyway, I doube a rider who can only ride at most a 15 pace can comfortably LEAD a B-15, or for that matter C-15 ride. While I assume a lot of A rides just GO, lots of B and C rides requries the leader to go back and forth to keep the ride together... That adds up to a lot more than just riding at the 15 mph pace.

Exactly. I think a B or C ride leader should generally be stronger/faster than the pace they typically lead. Not only are you possibly going back/forth, but you're taking the wind most of the time. Also, if you plan to lead at your top pace, what happens if you have an off/weak day? You could get dropped by your own ride. Ouch.

If you are much stronger, then there is a greater chance the pace will be faster, tiring those and possibly dropping who came expecting the advertised pace. As for dropping your leader, that just makes no logical sense. It's not only impolite, but assumes that the person who passes the leader (thereby leading the others to do the same) knows the leader's route. If the leader is having an off-day it's ok to hijack the ride?

Maybe on a SIG the leaders go back and forth, but not on most Club rides I've seen.

Personally, I ride for pleasure and a good workout, not because I’m trying to be a contestant in “Survivor.” I also like to occasionally see the scenery that’s flying by. I don’t see the shame in going on a ride you know you can handle (in my case, “14”), rather than riding within an inch of your life, hoping you can keep up and not get dropped, which does indeed happen. You can always push and be ahead of the pack, if that has some meaning to you.

"That was a joke. One time I was dropped briefly by my ride (I was sweeping, co-leader was in control at the front), but I caught back on.

My point was that if I advertise a ride at a certain pace, I want to make certain that I can do it. If my limit is ""x"", I'm going to list a ride as a leader at ""x-2"" to make sure I can lead at the advertised pace. That way if I wake up nauseous or crampy or overtrained or whatever, I don't have to disapoint the whole group by riding slower than they expected.

And by going ""back and forth"", I meant sometimes ride leaders have to back track to help with mechanicals. More than once I've had to climb Walnut or Churchill 2xs to help a rider with a dropped chain or some other problem.

I understand what you're saying-- for you, it's only a joke. However, for the record, some leaders have actually dropped riders who weren't keeping up with the pace they've set. I understand all the policy reasons behind that, but it translates into a very stressful ride if you're pushing yourself to go on a ride that's faster than you can comfortably handle, only because there's nothing more moderate available. Maybe the NYCC could take the opposite approach from the fashion industry, where everyone is obsessed with small sizes. Call a ride a B-16 and pace it at a 14. People won't care about the speed, and they'll feel great because they can tell themselves (and others) that they did a 16!

I was joking about the leader possibly being too slow for the ride as listed.No rider should ever be dropped if they can keep up with the advertised pace. But if someone shows up for a ride knowing it's a stretch to hold the pace, I don't think they should expect the ride to wait for them if they can't keep up. It's too bad that there aren't more C13 or C14 rides. But that doesn't mean C13/14 riders should show up for B15/16 rides expecting for the ride to slow for them. That's not fair to the ride leader or the riders that can hold the pace. The NYCC has these well defined ride categories to make it more enjoyable and predictable for the riders - but this only works if the ride leaders lead the rides as advertised.

I'd also asked myself this question of late. When Irv and then both of us led the C SIG in the 1990s, the purpose was graduating people who could easily do 50 to 60 miles at a C14 pace tops, though a few showed up with greater capabilities at the getgo, they weren't the predominant number. I think because we were training people to go as fast as we were then, that's how fast SIGgers got by and large. Some of the C SIG leaders are able to ride faster than this, and I have heard that the rides can be quite fast (faster than any C pace). Ergo, if you finish the C SIG you ride on B rides. If you can't keep up, then I guess you fall off the back. Maybe the Club culture of glorifying speed above all else is responsible. When I joined, the Club culture was touring and scenery. All I know is, in the last few years, I've gotten fewer and fewer riders for the same rides I've always led - sometimes 0, 1 or 2, even on nice days. The last one I led (to Eagle Rock and the Presby Iris Gardens), right after the C SIG was over, attracted 3, 2 of which were C SIGgers. I have become busier now, and am unhappy to commit a weekend day six weeks in advance and then not have riders. I wish it weren't so, but, as Irv would say, Just the Facts Ma'am.

"My speed never really got much faster from the days I joined the club (some 5-6 years ago). But I learned to ride a lot longer at about the same speed.

In the mean time, the roads around our city has gotten a lot busier. A lot of what used to be quiet, low traffic roads had gotten busier and less bike friendly. I think as a result, there're fewer and fewer riders who want to do slow rides near the city.

So, instead of going on B-16/17 rides of under 50 miles, which only get me to lower Westchester, I now prefer to do a slower 15'ish mph ride of 70+ miles, which takes me to upper Westchester (and Putnam if I take the train back). The one side-effect of that kind of ride is I'll be out the ENTIRE day!

This preference had pretty much had me finding no suitable rides from the club listing. Nor do I see a lot of riders who likes to be out the ENTIRE day like I do. On the few long'ish rides I joined, there's always riders who need to drop out of the rides because they ""have to be back in the city"" at a certain time!

I'm not sure if the club purposely focus on speed. It's just the fact that riders are getting faster and discovering roads are nicer the further away from the city. Hence the appeal of more faster rides going longer distance."

Yes, I've been watching the subdivisions go in for 25 years. For this reason and that I don't like adding 30 miles of senseless commuting onto the mileage total of my rides (i.e., I live in Inwood, Inwood to ride start in CP is 7.5, back to where I would normally start, 7.5, do the ride, then back to CP, 7.5, then back home to Inwood 7.5) I start my rides near the perimeter of the city.

If you forget Central park (who came up with that anyway?) and start rides from the edge of the city as the club used to do for the majority of rides (particularly the slower ones), then most of our miles are beautiful, we have less traffic to deal with, and yes, we would go faster.

Great places we used to start from: Bronx: end of #4, end of #1; Manhattan, GW Bridge, Inwood; Brooklyn: Grand Army Plaza, Queens: Statue of Civic Virtue (Union Tpke on E, F).

This other thing about having to get back for something at 3 o'clock... I'm not saying that there should never be change, but I sure did like the way it was, when the expectation was that all rides got back between 5 and 6. You didn't have people whining that they had to be back early. It just didn't happen. I wonder if the expectation is now the reverse... that if you want to get back by 5 or 6 it should be in the writeup as an oddity.

And yes, the Club is getting faster. The low end of C has fallen off. Those who go bike touring (i.e. with panniers, innovating their routes from place to place in far off locales) is almost unheard of now.

BTW, I started a new thread on ride classifications since I unwittingly hijacked this thread.

"I have often wondered how many NYCC rides actually start in one of the five boroughts...and how many consist of riding completely or mostly in the five boroughs.

It's the ""NY""CC. Should not most rides start and/or include the five boroughs?

There are fewer C riders because riding in NYC is perceived as more dangerous. It's more dangerous because responsible riders like most NYCCers don't do enough to advocate for safer cycling. One way to advocate for safer cycling is to cycle in groups in NYC while adibing by the rules of the road, instead of giving the roads to the nihilists in Critical Mass.

"The whole premise that all C-Sig graduates should be able to move on to the B-Sigs, rather than being allowed to move up the ranks of the C-Sigs, is patently ridiculous. Everyone starts the C-Sigs at different levels of ability/fitness, which is why there are 3 or 4 levels of C-Sig. Similarly, they will end the C-Sigs at different levels of fitness. Most of them, except for those who started in the fastest C-Sig group, are still not going to be at the level of a B rider, in terms of speed and ability to handle the more difficult hills. They should be allowed to continue to build on what they've gained in reasonable increments until they're ready for the B-Sigs, rather than jumping ahead couple of levels. This is all the move vital in view of the fact that there are so few C-level group rides. I don't understand the current rationale. If it's just a matter of there possibly being too many people in a group, that can be worked out on a case-by-case basis. To maintain the current blanket rule does a disservice to both the C's and the B's who have to ride with them. I really wish the ""powers that be"" would change this policy, starting next Spring!"

Lois, you make a good point. If it's any consolation I know we had at least one person in our group who had done previous C-SIGs so I don't think the rule is hard and fast. Perhaps you can write to Patricia Janof, the C-SIG coordinator. Another suggestion: some of our C-SIG leaders were people who had done the C-SIG before and wanted to do it again, so they became co-leaders. Maybe that's something you could look into.

Moving up the C-sig ladder would only mean that from Marchthru May , there would be C-rides available. That would still not address the issue of the scarcity of C rides during the remainder of the year.

We all agree that this is a problem when there is only one C ride scheduled in a month if not in two, and we will try to change this situation. We -- meaning a few C-SIG graduates and whoever wants to join us (whether you are a C, B, or A rider youself) in creating a pool of C-ride leaders who would share the responsibility of leading at least one C13/14-ride every weekend.

The other half is that C riders out there need to go on the rides. How would you feel if you went to the trouble of scouting a ride, listing it six weeks in advance, getting to the start, and finding 2 people there? How about 1? Or zero? How many people graduated from the true C SIG (those graduating at C level)? Where are those people? Were they burned out? Where are the leaders?

And I'm puzzled by seeing 'contact me off-line' in some posts. I heard this at last year's Berkshires weekend, where C SIGgers wanted to have their own little clique, not listed in the bulletin, just private emails. While it's a free country and all, setting up private cycling groups within the NYCC by using the message board, somehow seems ... well ... ??

Maggie, it sounds like you've got some beautiful ride itineraries. Perhaps (and I never thought I'd be saying this), if you could set the pace at just a little bit faster-- say, your former pace of C-14, you might be pleasantly surprised to see a larger turnout. There seems to be an underserved market here, but if the postings are representative of the membership, I think there's more of a demand for C-14's. Combine your itineraries with a C-14 pace and I think you've got a winner! (Just my opinion.)